From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C98C433DB for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683BB22273 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 683BB22273 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B622B8D008F; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B11D38D0076; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:11:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A4CD18D008F; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:11:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.215]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911FF8D0076 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62026181AF5C3 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77746753350.23.knot58_0b11e6d2758b Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4761537604 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:35 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: knot58_0b11e6d2758b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6720 Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) by imf33.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id d13so31352867ioy.4 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:11:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DmaMPZV/VxgqIwEqykBR9Gxeq43EdO4m32aypNvWqws=; b=HHG7wLODbspwxCbmnGKajzDGTjqBZclaP+G6ASPxG9eGtOhdkOJ9dCfAuGc3mO7Ups 0tjzKVmzdXnCylIdWsTX1yY0u32PmWAHI8fz0DZfzf8vsbRembHwsJoDv6asoyoAaaOD 3wSSNN7rwUT6wruziyjkKpfUjnfgIPhP1t46xrM/wu0hMVxizJXkObYjqPhn0pKyparT xHEnLx0AShEqWxdhfT9eiS4d82Cx5k4j8cwzVg3mBREY+lWlHuyLIsID8ZUG3ESzrC2d Ls0KXhoKhtNivhGJ9hYEB4IH4YRmNp/aO42MRMi5cmOeRcj0sX6X4u8SHUNX8xzskhDf 5sYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307HMD7y+AHtQ8saIP3Pq2xMTE5e3DvmSKzQPigtoIdYRGeVe0d CbvkSdyAgRf87Zl3PgTdT08= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzg5a2tpmFmJ61pfzc7Am/xdYUmierqENfZpjYyQN8FBl91Q6evPtafE7hB0cEkxfchrwrotA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1564:: with SMTP id k4mr3219033ilu.282.1611637894279; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:11:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (243.199.238.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.238.199.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y1sm12045326ioj.32.2021.01.25.21.11.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:11:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:11:32 +0000 From: Dennis Zhou To: Nick Desaulniers , Arnd Bergmann Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Linux-MM , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , clang-built-linux , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, kernel test robot Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix clang modpost warning in pcpu_build_alloc_info() Message-ID: References: <20201231212852.3175381-1-dennis@kernel.org> <20210104234651.GA3548546@ubuntu-m3-large-x86> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Nick, On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:27:11AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:07 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:55 AM Dennis Zhou wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 04:46:51PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:28:52PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nathan, > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > > > > I did a bisect of the problematic config against defconfig and it points > > > > out that CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL is in the bad config but not the good > > > > config, which makes some sense as that will mess with clang's inlining > > > > heuristics. It does not appear to be the single config that makes a > > > > difference but it gives some clarity. > > > > > > > > > > Ah, thanks. To me it's kind of a corner case that I don't have a lot of > > > insight into. __init code is pretty limited and this warning is really > > > at the compilers whim. However, in this case only clang throws this > > > warning. > > > > > > > I do not personally have any strong opinions around the patch but is it > > > > really that much wasted memory to just annotate mask with __refdata? > > > > > > It's really not much memory, 1 bit per max # of cpus. The reported > > > config is on the extreme side compiling with 8k NR_CPUS, so 1kb. I'm > > > just not in love with the idea of adding a patch to improve readability > > > and it cost idle memory to resolve a compile time warning. > > > > > > If no one else chimes in in the next few days, I'll probably just apply > > > it and go from there. If another issue comes up I'll drop this and tag > > > it as __refdata. > > > > I've come across this one again in linux-next today, and found that > > I had an old patch for it already, that I had never submitted: > > > > From 7d6f40414490092b86f1a64d8c42426ee350da1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Arnd Bergmann > > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 23:24:20 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: percpu: fix section mismatch warning > > > > Building with arm64 clang sometimes (fairly rarely) shows a > > warning about the pcpu_build_alloc_info() function: > > > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21697c): Section mismatch in > > reference from the function cpumask_clear_cpu() to the variable > > .init.data:pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask > > The function cpumask_clear_cpu() references > > the variable __initdata pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask. > > This is often because cpumask_clear_cpu lacks a __initdata > > annotation or the annotation of pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask is wrong. > > > > What appears to be going on here is that the compiler decides to not > > inline the cpumask_clear_cpu() function that is marked 'inline' but not > > 'always_inline', and it then produces a specialized version of it that > > references the static mask unconditionally as an optimization. > > > > Marking cpumask_clear_cpu() as __always_inline would fix it, as would > > removing the __initdata annotation on the variable. I went for marking > > the function as __attribute__((flatten)) instead because all functions > > I had to look this one up; it's new to me! > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes > https://awesomekling.github.io/Smarter-C++-inlining-with-attribute-flatten/ > > Seems pretty cool/flexible to control inlining on the caller side! > > At the least though, we should avoid open coding the function attributes. See > include/linux/compiler_attributes.h > Arnd do you mind spinning a new version to add __flatten to compiler_attributes.h? > Testing quickly in godbolt, __flatten__ has been supported since at > least clang 3.5 and gcc 4.4, FWIW (so it doesn't need a > __has_attribute guard). > Thanks for testing this! Thanks, Dennis